incubator-yoko-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From David Jencks <david_jen...@yahoo.com>
Subject Re: Request for creating the M2 release.
Date Wed, 14 Feb 2007 10:15:30 GMT

On Feb 13, 2007, at 5:17 PM, adisakala@gmail.com wrote:

> Yoko depends on current snapshot of cxf. I believe cxf is planning  
> to release RC end of the month. So it might be worth coordinating  
> yoko 1.0 with CXF.
>
> Dain, does geronimo 1.2 depend on CXF?

no.  We'd be pretty happy with  a release of the parts of yoko that  
don't depend on cxf.

thanks
david jencks

>
> Thanks,
>
>
> Sent via BlackBerry from Cingular Wireless
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dain Sundstrom <dain@iq80.com>
> Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 12:54:40
> To:yoko-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Request for creating the M2 release.
>
> That doesn't really work for me.  I'd like to release Geronimo 1.2 in
> the next two weeks and we need to the latest yoko code to pass the
> tck.  How about we release 1.0 now and a 1.0.1 refresh when the tools
> have been improved.  If it is only 4 weeks between release, that is
> great.  Users love it when projects release early *and* often :)
>
> -dain
>
> On Feb 13, 2007, at 11:25 AM, Mosur Ravi, Balaji wrote:
>
>> Also, I think the other components of yoko (binding & the tools)
>> can be made stable if given some time.
>>
>> How about sometime around March end? Is that a reasonable time frame?
>>
>> - Balaji
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Alan D. Cabrera [mailto:list@toolazydogs.com]
>> Sent: Sunday, February 11, 2007 1:24 AM
>> To: yoko-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: Request for creating the M2 release.
>>
>> This reflects my sentiments as well.
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>> Alan
>>
>>
>> On Feb 10, 2007, at 8:52 AM, Dain Sundstrom wrote:
>>
>>> I agree, it would be excellent to have comprehensive
>>> documentation.  For now, the software is complete and well tested,
>>> which is a lot more than I personally expect from 1.0 software.
>>> When we do get better documentation, we can quickly release a 1.1.
>>>
>>> -dain
>>>
>>> On Feb 10, 2007, at 1:29 AM, Lars K├╝hne wrote:
>>>
>>>> IMHO what's really missing for a 1.0 final release is the
>>>> documentation. I started some of it in the old wiki (http://
>>>> wiki.apache.org/incubator-yoko/OrbConfiguration), but that needs
>>>> to be migrated to cwiki or the distribution tar ball.
>>>>
>>>> Any chance that IONA would donate some of their docs? That would
>>>> be so much easier than trying to figure out the exact meaning of
>>>> each configuration option by reading the code.
>>>>
>>>> -Lars
>>>>
>>>> Dain Sundstrom wrote:
>>>>> I think we should release 1.0 final.  The ORB is totally working
>>>>> now and it has been throughly tested by the J2EE 1.4 tck.
>>>>>
>>>>> -dain
>>>>>
>>>>> On Feb 8, 2007, at 1:35 PM, Rick McGuire wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Geronimo has made great progress on the TCK using Yoko, and
>>>>>> we're starting to put things together for 1.2 release.  For the
>>>>>> 1.2 Beta release Geronimo shipped with an interim snapshot
>>>>>> version, but for the final 1.2 release, we'd like to use an
>>>>>> actual release version.  Can we get the process started to ship
>>>>>> an M2 release?  And more importantly, can we get it released in
>>>>>> a more timely fashion than was done for the M1 release?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Rick
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>


Mime
View raw message